Different religions are perceived differently in American culture. As the majority of citizens here are Christian, people will often assume that other religions are stranger simply because they're not the American default. Those assumptions have created the idea that other religions aren't as civilized as Christianity, or at the very least, they are stranger. More specifically, people see popular religions like Buddhism and Hinduism as foreign or exotic, and worse, they see religions like Islam as violent because a minority of the minority is overly vocal and violent. The texts that these religions are based upon all preach peace, and are occasionally more peaceful than the Christian Bible itself.
1. ISLAM:
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until theyfight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
-Quran, (2:190-192)
This Quran quote is clear in it’s intent: only fight in defense of yourself. It is only OK to murder when someone else strikes first and absolutely refuses to stop. Often, though, this section is read out of context. Those who wish to portray Islam negatively read only “And kill them… of the disbelievers.” (2:191) This leaves out the first and last line, and those lines make clear that throwing the first fist is not permitted, and that those who stop fighting are permitted forgiveness. Clearly, the Quran is not permitting murder. Like any set of laws, it is permitting self defense. Islam can not be seen as violent because of an out-of-context quote that proves to state only that you have the right to protect yourself. Any muslim using this quote as a justification for violence is not doing well, and anyone using this quote to prove that Islam is violent is reading only what they want to see.
2. CHRISTIANITY:
“And it shall be, if it make the answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that allthe people thatis found thereinshallbe tributaries untothee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.”
-Deuteronomy, (20:11-14)
Unlike the above Quran quote above, there doesn't seem to be much more context to this than what is here. It means to say that if anyone refuses you land, you may take the land, kill all of the men, and keep all of the women, livestock, and children. Should they be stupid enough to open their walls to you, you may take them all as servants. If this was the part of the old testament that people payed attention to, then maybe Christianity and Judaism would have just as bad a rap as Islam. This quote, however, isn't a proper representation of the Bible. As a general statement, the Bible speaks of love, life, and spirituality. No American would judge a Christian for the presence of this quote in the Bible, and just as occasional quotes about violence aren't proper representations of the Quran, Muslims shouldn't be judged for their scripture with no context either.
3. BUDDHISM:
"All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill." -Dhammapada, Chapter 10
How explicit, how concise! In so few words and with so few loopholes does this manage to say the necessary: don't kill people and don't do anything that results in another person being killed. Whether it's phrased as "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" or "treat others how you want to be treated," the golden rule is pretty golden. Buddhism seems to exist on a sort of level where everything suggested is just common sense for being a good and happy person, but expressed in a way that makes it seem like law. I personally believe this is better than the more specific, more biased approach of the above religions. What's wrong is wrong, and that shouldn't change based on wanting their land, or based on their location of attack. This is an example of how things should be written.
4. EXTREMISM:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
-Barry Goldwater, 1964
Our country was founded by tea-throwing terrorists who attacked that which was dear to tyrants to further their own ideals. The reason we don't call the Boston tea party "terrorism" is because we like them, and we like the specific ideals they were trying to push forward. Technological advances have obviously changed the scope of terrorism, and the subject has changed, too. People no longer throw away tea over civil rights; they murder people to push more subjective philosophies. At it's heart, violence is wrong. Most people can agree. But with promises of heaven, and propaganda, and clever ways of ignoring what religious texts mean, extremism is to be expected. These people are taught that their truths are exactly as self-evident as all men being created equal, and there's nothing more frightening than people who believe what they're saying.
CLOSING THOUGHTS:
The Quran isn't violent, and Islam isn't violent. Why do so many people choose to think that's not the case, then? Most likely, it's the foreignness aspect. If a Christian or an atheist crashed a plane into a building and claimed it was for Jesus or for science (respectively), they'd be written off as a mental health case instead of a religious one. Because so many people are uneducated about both Islam and mental health, they perceive Islamic attacks as fully descriptive of the religion, which is clearly not the case. Buddhism can be just as tranquil as Christianity, if not more so. Christianity itself can sometimes be violent.
If these misconceptions can be solved by any means, it's an incredibly common solution: Americans need to be educated on differences.
How do Different Religions Approach Violence?
OPENING THOUGHTS:
Different religions are perceived differently in American culture. As the majority of citizens here are Christian, people will often assume that other religions are stranger simply because they're not the American default. Those assumptions have created the idea that other religions aren't as civilized as Christianity, or at the very least, they are stranger. More specifically, people see popular religions like Buddhism and Hinduism as foreign or exotic, and worse, they see religions like Islam as violent because a minority of the minority is overly vocal and violent. The texts that these religions are based upon all preach peace, and are occasionally more peaceful than the Christian Bible itself.1. ISLAM:
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
-Quran, (2:190-192)
This Quran quote is clear in it’s intent: only fight in defense of yourself. It is only OK to murder when someone else strikes first and absolutely refuses to stop. Often, though, this section is read out of context. Those who wish to portray Islam negatively read only “And kill them… of the disbelievers.” (2:191) This leaves out the first and last line, and those lines make clear that throwing the first fist is not permitted, and that those who stop fighting are permitted forgiveness. Clearly, the Quran is not permitting murder. Like any set of laws, it is permitting self defense. Islam can not be seen as violent because of an out-of-context quote that proves to state only that you have the right to protect yourself. Any muslim using this quote as a justification for violence is not doing well, and anyone using this quote to prove that Islam is violent is reading only what they want to see.
2. CHRISTIANITY:
“And it shall be, if it make the answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.”
-Deuteronomy, (20:11-14)
Unlike the above Quran quote above, there doesn't seem to be much more context to this than what is here. It means to say that if anyone refuses you land, you may take the land, kill all of the men, and keep all of the women, livestock, and children. Should they be stupid enough to open their walls to you, you may take them all as servants. If this was the part of the old testament that people payed attention to, then maybe Christianity and Judaism would have just as bad a rap as Islam. This quote, however, isn't a proper representation of the Bible. As a general statement, the Bible speaks of love, life, and spirituality. No American would judge a Christian for the presence of this quote in the Bible, and just as occasional quotes about violence aren't proper representations of the Quran, Muslims shouldn't be judged for their scripture with no context either.
3. BUDDHISM:
"All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill."-Dhammapada, Chapter 10
How explicit, how concise! In so few words and with so few loopholes does this manage to say the necessary: don't kill people and don't do anything that results in another person being killed. Whether it's phrased as "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" or "treat others how you want to be treated," the golden rule is pretty golden. Buddhism seems to exist on a sort of level where everything suggested is just common sense for being a good and happy person, but expressed in a way that makes it seem like law. I personally believe this is better than the more specific, more biased approach of the above religions. What's wrong is wrong, and that shouldn't change based on wanting their land, or based on their location of attack. This is an example of how things should be written.
4. EXTREMISM:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater, 1964
Our country was founded by tea-throwing terrorists who attacked that which was dear to tyrants to further their own ideals. The reason we don't call the Boston tea party "terrorism" is because we like them, and we like the specific ideals they were trying to push forward. Technological advances have obviously changed the scope of terrorism, and the subject has changed, too. People no longer throw away tea over civil rights; they murder people to push more subjective philosophies. At it's heart, violence is wrong. Most people can agree. But with promises of heaven, and propaganda, and clever ways of ignoring what religious texts mean, extremism is to be expected. These people are taught that their truths are exactly as self-evident as all men being created equal, and there's nothing more frightening than people who believe what they're saying.
CLOSING THOUGHTS:
The Quran isn't violent, and Islam isn't violent. Why do so many people choose to think that's not the case, then? Most likely, it's the foreignness aspect. If a Christian or an atheist crashed a plane into a building and claimed it was for Jesus or for science (respectively), they'd be written off as a mental health case instead of a religious one. Because so many people are uneducated about both Islam and mental health, they perceive Islamic attacks as fully descriptive of the religion, which is clearly not the case. Buddhism can be just as tranquil as Christianity, if not more so. Christianity itself can sometimes be violent.If these misconceptions can be solved by any means, it's an incredibly common solution: Americans need to be educated on differences.
SOURCES:
1. http://quran.com/2/190-1942. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20%3A11-14%2CPsalm+19%2CRomans+10%3A8-18&version=NIV
3. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/dp10.htm
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm